Can markets save the earth from climate change? That is the question I posed yesterday. Today the answer came back loud and clear from none other than the President of the United States himself.
"To truly transform our economy, to protect our security and save our planet from the ravages of climate change" President Obama told the US Congress yesterday, "we need to ultimately make clean renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America".
Now I'm not for a moment suggesting that the President has been reading my blog (though I don't rule it out) but the cap and trade system that he referred to last night is exactly the kind of market-based carbon pricing mechanism that I was discussing yesterday.
He could not have been more forceful about his commitment. It was top of his list of priorities: "The only way this century will be another American century is if we confront at last the price of our dependence on oil", he said.
It is a truly radical policy. Europe has had a limited cap and trade system for years but what Obama is proposing is an economy-wide system.
The idea is this: the government sets a cap, a limit, on the total amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted. It then issues permits to emit that carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The permits can be bought and sold on a market - that's the trade bit - and companies can only emit carbon dioxide if they buy a permit.
The reason President Obama supports cap and trade is because it harnesses carbon reduction to the most powerful motivating force ever developed - the power of capitalism, the power of human ambition.
Businesses won't seek to cut carbon emissions to save the earth they will do it because it will save them money and therefore increase their profits. Cap and trade creates the "carbon price" we were discussing yesterday because it makes emitting carbon just another cost in a business' production process.
Just think how powerful a change that could be. What it does is enforce the principle that the polluter should pay for the damage they create.
Tackling pollution is a subject close to the hearts of many of the residents of Muskegon, the little city in Michigan I have been staying in.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Discussion Question 4: Obama's "Green" Stimulus?
It appears as though the Obama stimulus package signed last week has a lot of environmental components, specifically a lot on energy policy. There are new incentives for renewable energy, in the form of tax breaks in the bill, used to encourage Americans to buy cars using alternative energy. Energy transmission and efficiency is also emphasized in the bill. President Obama also wants to create new clean energy and adapt this to the power grid in the U.S.
One of the major goals of the bill is to create large scale improvements on the different sectors of the American infrastructure, relating to the environment. This includes the electrical grid system, as well as the America's water and sewer systems. Many of these systems are nearly one hundred years old, and need to be replaced with new technology. The stimulus bill proposes that the new technology not only be advanced but also environmentally friendly.
While many of these ideas are good in principle, many are also lofty and may in fact take many years to complete. The goal of the stimulus package is to stimulate the economy as quickly as possible to get America out of the recession, however, many of these energy projects are long term projects which will take many years to make. Even creating the new technology for the changes, and then manufacturing the parts for production will take a few years. Therefore while it is great that there will be new green jobs created from this stimulus package, it is hard to see the immediate benefit of these environmental developments. Due to the technological and scientific advancement which must take place, before such drastic changes to America's energy supply and water and sewer system structures takes place, years of research and development followed by manufacturing will need to occur before any of the changes are implemented. I'm interested to see these new environmental energy solutions, however I fear the economy cannot wait the time it will take for these technologies to develop.
Amanda
One of the major goals of the bill is to create large scale improvements on the different sectors of the American infrastructure, relating to the environment. This includes the electrical grid system, as well as the America's water and sewer systems. Many of these systems are nearly one hundred years old, and need to be replaced with new technology. The stimulus bill proposes that the new technology not only be advanced but also environmentally friendly.
While many of these ideas are good in principle, many are also lofty and may in fact take many years to complete. The goal of the stimulus package is to stimulate the economy as quickly as possible to get America out of the recession, however, many of these energy projects are long term projects which will take many years to make. Even creating the new technology for the changes, and then manufacturing the parts for production will take a few years. Therefore while it is great that there will be new green jobs created from this stimulus package, it is hard to see the immediate benefit of these environmental developments. Due to the technological and scientific advancement which must take place, before such drastic changes to America's energy supply and water and sewer system structures takes place, years of research and development followed by manufacturing will need to occur before any of the changes are implemented. I'm interested to see these new environmental energy solutions, however I fear the economy cannot wait the time it will take for these technologies to develop.
Amanda
Part 4 of the Biotech Reading
Here are my notes on the final section of the Biotech reading:
Pages 215 – 222
Consumer rights: putting labels on all food that indicates it is genetical modified
If there is nothing wrong with biotech food, then companies should have no problem labeling them
These labeling rules set a new standard in international law, where the rule arose out of consumer curiosity
labels inevitably produce fears that biotech foods aren't safe
labels: won't satisfy the goal of completely separating organic and biotech growing
regulations like that could cost the gov't around $4 billion
such regulations could lead to legal nightmares, and significantly raise the prices of processed foods
Any strict regulations on labeling could interfere with the workings of the WTO, and put a serious strain on a free international trade system
labels are “unjustly stigmatizing and costly and offer no consumer health or safety benefits”
regulations based on societal values can never be harmonized internationally
activist campaign against biotech → what they really don't like is free markets and globalization
Genes are resources, just like copper for example → beneficial genes are being wasted if we don't use processes like biotechnology
the REAL issue is inequity in food distribution
biotech companies will catch on in developing countries, and will help produce more food
Pages 215 – 222
Consumer rights: putting labels on all food that indicates it is genetical modified
If there is nothing wrong with biotech food, then companies should have no problem labeling them
These labeling rules set a new standard in international law, where the rule arose out of consumer curiosity
labels inevitably produce fears that biotech foods aren't safe
labels: won't satisfy the goal of completely separating organic and biotech growing
regulations like that could cost the gov't around $4 billion
such regulations could lead to legal nightmares, and significantly raise the prices of processed foods
Any strict regulations on labeling could interfere with the workings of the WTO, and put a serious strain on a free international trade system
labels are “unjustly stigmatizing and costly and offer no consumer health or safety benefits”
regulations based on societal values can never be harmonized internationally
activist campaign against biotech → what they really don't like is free markets and globalization
Genes are resources, just like copper for example → beneficial genes are being wasted if we don't use processes like biotechnology
the REAL issue is inequity in food distribution
biotech companies will catch on in developing countries, and will help produce more food
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Discussion Question #4
Of course, most Americans are looking forward to Obama's Stimulus Package, for one reason or another. In regards to its effects for the environment? I imagine that based on some of the projects i have heard would be included, it could be both helpful OR hurtful to the environment, so i did some research to take a closer look.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/12/stimulus/?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCOther1
Based on CNN data as to how the taxpayer funds will be alloted, here is what i am figuring out.
Energy and Environment - This section seems to be getting a pretty big chunk of the money pie. At between $50-98 billion being invested here, what i am assuming is that a heavy influence on this investment would be in the research and development of more sustainable, and thus eco-friendly, energy sources (YAY Earth!). As well, perhaps beautification and cleaning projects will come into the mix, returning America to her reputation of being beautiful.
Agriculture and Rural Development - I am not sure whether the $16-34 billion investment in this area will end up benefitting the environment. While agriculture can be eco-friendly, I worry that this Stimulus investment will likely figure into farming subsidies and crop shifting or expanding, which ultimately aren't so great. Rural development, to me, means in some cases we will be disturbing nature to make room for more American families...so....??
Commerce Justice and Science - This section is getting around $15 billion. I mentioned it because as it includes science, perhaps scientific investment will lead to breakthroughs in ecological and medical research, which, in turn, would have prolific good (or bad?) effects on the environment. That would likely be a long ways away.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/12/stimulus/?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCOther1
Based on CNN data as to how the taxpayer funds will be alloted, here is what i am figuring out.
Energy and Environment - This section seems to be getting a pretty big chunk of the money pie. At between $50-98 billion being invested here, what i am assuming is that a heavy influence on this investment would be in the research and development of more sustainable, and thus eco-friendly, energy sources (YAY Earth!). As well, perhaps beautification and cleaning projects will come into the mix, returning America to her reputation of being beautiful.
Agriculture and Rural Development - I am not sure whether the $16-34 billion investment in this area will end up benefitting the environment. While agriculture can be eco-friendly, I worry that this Stimulus investment will likely figure into farming subsidies and crop shifting or expanding, which ultimately aren't so great. Rural development, to me, means in some cases we will be disturbing nature to make room for more American families...so....??
Commerce Justice and Science - This section is getting around $15 billion. I mentioned it because as it includes science, perhaps scientific investment will lead to breakthroughs in ecological and medical research, which, in turn, would have prolific good (or bad?) effects on the environment. That would likely be a long ways away.
PART 2 of Bailey reading 194-203
The first area of bio-tech industry examined in part 2 of the reading was the engineering of medical compounds from plants, plants which would be subsequently marketed and promoted for large-scale growth to meet the demand for use of those compounds. Concerns of the collateral effects of such a plan are identified and subsequently alleviated, such as concerns of cross-pollination with food crops, etc. It also suggested some benefits of adopting this practice of "growing medicine", in that it could potentially lower drug prices (based on availability), and also, linking medicine to agriculture can allow more accessible means of transmitting medicines to the Third World.
The reading shifts into the bio-engineering of animal life as well. It looks at the use of manipulating genetics for both pleasure as well as for profit. For pleasure, we may see the cloning of loved pets, reducing strains of irritating bugs (and saving helpful bugs), etc; in terms of profit, genetic engineering opens the potential for faster-growing food animals (Salmon) to ones that taste better with leaner meat portions. The question of whether to do the same for trees is also posed, meaning we could both bring back majestic American trees of the past, and also revert to strong genetically modified trees for lumber industry purposes, and leave existing forests intact.
The last portion of this section consist of a review of various arguments against GM crops, and the author's well-supported counter-arguments. Bailey is using scientific knowledge along with understanding of world need for GM crops (along with conventional history of modern agriculture) to argue this point, which i found persuasive enough to agree with.
The reading shifts into the bio-engineering of animal life as well. It looks at the use of manipulating genetics for both pleasure as well as for profit. For pleasure, we may see the cloning of loved pets, reducing strains of irritating bugs (and saving helpful bugs), etc; in terms of profit, genetic engineering opens the potential for faster-growing food animals (Salmon) to ones that taste better with leaner meat portions. The question of whether to do the same for trees is also posed, meaning we could both bring back majestic American trees of the past, and also revert to strong genetically modified trees for lumber industry purposes, and leave existing forests intact.
The last portion of this section consist of a review of various arguments against GM crops, and the author's well-supported counter-arguments. Bailey is using scientific knowledge along with understanding of world need for GM crops (along with conventional history of modern agriculture) to argue this point, which i found persuasive enough to agree with.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Part 1 of Bailey Reading: pg. 183-193
I just finished part one (pg 183-193) of the Bailey reading. Here's my basic summary:
The article talks about biotech crops which are taking "useful genes from any organism and insert them into other organism" thereby creating genetically modified plants (pg. 187).
The article addresses the concerns regarding biotech crops and gives two examples of international issues regarding the crops.
1. 1999 cyclone in India--USAID tried to give genetically modified (GM) crops to India, which India refused despite its starving people because they feared the crops were unsafe, they were being used as the guinea pigs, and getting the rejected food from the North.
2. 2002 famine in Zambia--US tried to give GM crop aid, but again due to antibiotech activists telling Africans about the dangers of the crops, the leaders refused the aid. Also African leaders were afraid of getting caught between the US and the EU, since the EU bans GM crops.
In 2004 in the US: 45% of corn, 85% of soybean, and 76% of cotton is GM. About 1/3 of global biotech crop is in the developing world. Biotech crops help increase food production and income.
Biotech food is safe, there have been no known cases of any harm being cased by GM food. Most Americans have been eating GM food since 1995, and 70% of food in grocery stores is GM. The EU admits that GM food is safe, even though they insist on a ban.
Currently biotech crops main improvements are that they are pest and herbicide resistant. Next step would be drought resistant, and able to survive in harsh soils.
The article talks about biotech crops which are taking "useful genes from any organism and insert them into other organism" thereby creating genetically modified plants (pg. 187).
The article addresses the concerns regarding biotech crops and gives two examples of international issues regarding the crops.
1. 1999 cyclone in India--USAID tried to give genetically modified (GM) crops to India, which India refused despite its starving people because they feared the crops were unsafe, they were being used as the guinea pigs, and getting the rejected food from the North.
2. 2002 famine in Zambia--US tried to give GM crop aid, but again due to antibiotech activists telling Africans about the dangers of the crops, the leaders refused the aid. Also African leaders were afraid of getting caught between the US and the EU, since the EU bans GM crops.
In 2004 in the US: 45% of corn, 85% of soybean, and 76% of cotton is GM. About 1/3 of global biotech crop is in the developing world. Biotech crops help increase food production and income.
Biotech food is safe, there have been no known cases of any harm being cased by GM food. Most Americans have been eating GM food since 1995, and 70% of food in grocery stores is GM. The EU admits that GM food is safe, even though they insist on a ban.
Currently biotech crops main improvements are that they are pest and herbicide resistant. Next step would be drought resistant, and able to survive in harsh soils.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Discussion Question #4
I think the stimulus package means a few positive and negative things for the environment. First of all, its obvious that the package isn't perfect, and it certainly can't wipe away any and all problems we're facing currently. I was reading on the New York Times website what measures the bill included, and there are quite a few that represent some modicum of change in the way we view energy sources. The first is tax credits for energy-efficient improvements in the home (things like new windows, insulation, etc.). Second is the ability for taxpayers to deduct 30% of the cost of solar water heaters, wind turbines, and geothermal pumps. These are both really great incentives, however will only make any real difference for people who can afford these upgrades in the first place, which I think may be a very small percentage of the population. There are multiple investments in clean energy, however this includes funding for carbon sequestration and clean coal, which DOESN'T EXIST. I've researched it...for more info, check out: http://action.thisisreality.org/details. Coal is the dirtiest type of energy, and its the biggest contributor to global warming. There isn't a single plant today in the US that uses clean coal, so dumping millions of dollars into theory alone seems rather useless, especially when it isn't time lined, and could take extremely long to reach commercialization.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Blog Question #3
To answer the first part of the question, i would have to say that my most thrilling experience with the non-human world is a tie of a few things.
- holding a baby monkey was one of these, because it is of course a beautiful experience to hold a young animal, all cute and playful, but also because it is shocking and magical to realize how similar that a little chimp is compared to us humans. VERY COOL.
- also, i have been to a few aquariums recently in Japan, and i dont know if it is something specific to their culture, but they seem to display aquatic life in an unreal, beautiful sort of way. For example, at Roppongi Hills in Tokyo, they have the fish surround you in a tunnel, which is actually sort of surreal (are you observing them, or are they observing you?)
- lastly, i always have kind of enjoyed scenic sunsets; in the city, in the country, the quiet but colorful rainbow melanges in the sky are a reminder of that the day always ends, no matter where you are, and in particularly nice instances, what magical displays that nature is capable of.
So all of this said, how should one feel about "saving nature"? based sort of on my personal favorite natural experiences, i most certainly feel compelled. besides the aquarium element, which some would say may or may not be counterintuitive to saving nature, i think to preserve such wonders as primates (who are highly endangered and some risking extinction) and many other animals requires finding thorough and EFFECTIVE methods of wildlife conservation. As well, i beleive that their are many natural elements which contribute to a beautiful sunset, from reduced city lights, to the o-zone to the health of trees, etc., and without a concerted effort to keep all contributory elements in check, rainbow-skylines could be the next thing we lose, another joy our grandchildren will miss. too bad.
- holding a baby monkey was one of these, because it is of course a beautiful experience to hold a young animal, all cute and playful, but also because it is shocking and magical to realize how similar that a little chimp is compared to us humans. VERY COOL.
- also, i have been to a few aquariums recently in Japan, and i dont know if it is something specific to their culture, but they seem to display aquatic life in an unreal, beautiful sort of way. For example, at Roppongi Hills in Tokyo, they have the fish surround you in a tunnel, which is actually sort of surreal (are you observing them, or are they observing you?)
- lastly, i always have kind of enjoyed scenic sunsets; in the city, in the country, the quiet but colorful rainbow melanges in the sky are a reminder of that the day always ends, no matter where you are, and in particularly nice instances, what magical displays that nature is capable of.
So all of this said, how should one feel about "saving nature"? based sort of on my personal favorite natural experiences, i most certainly feel compelled. besides the aquarium element, which some would say may or may not be counterintuitive to saving nature, i think to preserve such wonders as primates (who are highly endangered and some risking extinction) and many other animals requires finding thorough and EFFECTIVE methods of wildlife conservation. As well, i beleive that their are many natural elements which contribute to a beautiful sunset, from reduced city lights, to the o-zone to the health of trees, etc., and without a concerted effort to keep all contributory elements in check, rainbow-skylines could be the next thing we lose, another joy our grandchildren will miss. too bad.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Question 3: Experiences in Nature
I can't think of one grand experience in nature, but I do have fond memories of just getting outside and enjoying nature. My parents weren't exactly tree huggers, but they did make sure that us kids, spent a fair amount of our childhood outside. As a kid, one of my favorite games to play with my cousins was "Indians" outside in the woods by my grandparents' house. The older cousins would lead the younger ones on a great adventure to find sticks for the firewood, stones for the special places we would design, and countless other wonders that my adult brain is no longer privy to remember. Some of my favorite childhood memories are of those games in those woods. Our childish innocence yet wild exploration of the world and nature around us, amazes me. I also have had some really great encounters with nature as an adult, but again in a very innocent, nature walk type adventure. A simple walk away from the hustle and bustle of the city, whether it be in West Virginia or in the hills of Germany, always manages to stir something in my soul. As much as I love living in a city, I'm still a country girl at heart, and every few months I get an itch and simply must get out and really enjoy nature, with a good, long, quiet walk amongst nature.
That said, in order for me to continue to enjoy the peace and serenity that nature grants me, of course I think it's important for us to preserve and "save" nature. I think going out into nature, reminds us that not only did we not create nature, but we have no right to destroy it. Even if you want to save nature for the sole reason because it is pretty, (despite its many other benefits and purposes) nature must be saved, and I hope that is something everyone can agree on.
Amanda
That said, in order for me to continue to enjoy the peace and serenity that nature grants me, of course I think it's important for us to preserve and "save" nature. I think going out into nature, reminds us that not only did we not create nature, but we have no right to destroy it. Even if you want to save nature for the sole reason because it is pretty, (despite its many other benefits and purposes) nature must be saved, and I hope that is something everyone can agree on.
Amanda
ethical man/ethical family experiment
the environmentally ethical man starts his environmentally friendly endeavor! click link to view a video also.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/02/ethical_man_is_reborn.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/02/ethical_man_is_reborn.html
Ethical Man is reborn
- 13 Feb 09, 02:44 PM GMT
We all know the green mantras. Change your lightbulbs, recycle, fly less, buy a hybrid car, turn down the thermostat. The list goes on and on.
But here's the rub. On their own they are never going to be enough to stop global warming.
I know it is green heresy but it is true. How do I know? Because I am the BBC's Ethical Man and my family and I spent a year doing everything we could think of to reduce our carbon emissions.
We did all the big stuff. We stopped flying, got rid of the car and changed the way we heat and power our home. Here's a snapshot of our ethical year:
But we only managed to cut our carbon emissions by 20%. That's right, just 20%.
Remember, according to the scientists we need to cut our emissions by 80% by 2050 just to keep climate change within two degrees centigrade of current world temperatures.
Clearly even the best efforts of ethical men and women on their own will not be enough to prevent global warming.
So the BBC has given me a new and bigger challenge, nothing less than to save the world from climate change!
I'm going on a 6,500 mile trip around the nation that brought the world the motor car, the aeroplane, the suburb, the drive-thru hamburger joint and the hot tub, in search of solutions to the biggest problem on earth.
Each American is responsible for 20 tons of carbon dioxide emissions, more than twice that of the average European. But America is also the most innovative and powerful nation on earth and, what's more, has a president who says he is serious about tackling global warming.
The idea is simple. If we can solve global warming here, we can solve it anywhere.
We've sketched a rough schedule. We'll be starting in a small town in Michigan called Muskegon, and then we'll trace a giant circle round via Detroit, Washington, Texas, California and back to Muskegon.
We've lined up all sorts of people to speak to but we need more. We want to meet people who are already trying to find the answers the world needs.
Who do you think we should be talking to?
Do you have any ideas about how we might make the massive changes to our societies that will be necessary to cut greenhouse gas emissions?
Do you know anyone who is working in their garage on some crazy invention that might just save the world?
And I've got another, rather more personal request. Because I'm travelling as the BBC's Ethical Man I've been ordered to keep my environmental impact to an absolute minimum.
Of course I'm going to fly from Britain, but after that my producer Sara insists that I have to get around in the most low carbon way possible. I have downloaded the Greyhound bus timetable and am looking at what trains I might catch... but how else can I get around?
Please click the Ethical Man Feed button in the right hand column and subscribe to my RSS feed. Then you'll be alerted to any new blogs.
I plan to post regular reports as I travel around America, and want to stimulate a vigorous debate about whether we can, or indeed should, attempt to build a low-carbon economy.
You can find out more about my last Ethical Man project here.
And you can follow my progress across America via the Ethical Man Facebook group and on Twitter.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
BLEAK FORECAST ON FISHERY STOCKS
a BBC article on poor prospects for fish numbers, particularly as a result of climate change.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7887536.stm
To quantify the likely impact on sea life, Dr Cheung and his team developed a new computer model that predicts what might happen under different climate scenarios.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7887536.stm
Bleak forecast on fishery stocks
| By James Morgan Science reporter, BBC News, Chicago |
 Some Atlantic cod fisheries could drop by 50% by 2050 |
The world's fish stocks will soon suffer major upheaval due to climate change, scientists have warned.
Changing ocean temperatures and currents will force thousands of species to migrate polewards, including cod, herring, plaice and prawns.
By 2050, US fishermen may see a 50% reduction in Atlantic cod populations.
The predictions of "huge changes", published in the journal Fish and Fisheries, were presented at the AAAS annual meeting in Chicago.
Marine biologists used computer models to forecast the future of 1,066 commercially important species from across the globe.
"The impact of climate change on marine biodiversity and fisheries is going to be huge," said lead author Dr William Cheung, of the University of East Anglia in the UK.
"We must act now to adapt our fisheries management and conservation policies to minimise harm to marine life and to our society.
"We can use our knowledge to improve the design of marine protected areas which are adaptable to changes in distribution of the species," he told the conference.
Sinking feeling
The world's oceans are already experiencing changes in temperature and current patterns are changing due to climate change.
 Existing patterns of catches will change |
While scientists have made projections of climate change impact on land species, this is the most comprehensive study on marine species ever published.
"We found that on average, the animals may shift their distribution towards the poles by 40km per decade," said Dr Cheung.
"Atlantic cod on the east coast of the US may see a 50% reduction in some populations by 2050."
The invasion of new species into unfamiliar environments could seriously disrupt ecosystems, the researchers warn.
Some species will face a high risk of extinction, including Striped Rock Cod in the Antarctic and St Paul Rock Lobster in the Southern Ocean.
Sea-saw
But of course, as fish migrate polewards, fishermen in some areas will see their stocks increase.
The model predicts an increased catch in the North Sea - benefiting fishermen from Nordic countries.
But fishermen in tropical developing countries will suffer major losses in catch.
The socio-economic impact could be devastating, according to another study published recently in the same journal.
Thirty-three nations in Africa, Asia and South America are highly vulnerable to the impact of climate change in fisheries, according to scientists from the World Fish Centre.
Of these, 19 were already classified by the United Nations as "least developed" because of their particularly poor socioenomic conditions.
"Economically, people in the tropics and subtropics likely will suffer most, because fish are so important in their diets and because they have limited capacity to develop other sources of income and food," said Edward Allison, director of policy, economics and social science at WorldFish.
"We believe it is urgent to start identifying these vulnerable countries, because the damage will be greatly compounded unless national governments and international institutions like the World Bank act now to include the fish sector in plans for helping the poor cope with climate change."
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Saving Nature - Q #3
This is a really tough question to answer, because I have about three or four different memories running through my brain right now. But the one that sticks out the most was a night that I spent up in the White Mountains in New Hampshire. It was over the summer, I was backpacking with a friend, and we decided to spend the night outside of our tent since the weather was so nice. That night, lying in my sleeping back I had a panoramic view of the night sky, dotted with thousands of stars. But I think the thing that was so “magical” about it was that they way I was laying and looking at the sky, you could see the curvature of the Earth, like a reminder that the mountain I was on was part of an enormous thing, much bigger than my own existence.
The experience that I described above is probably the biggest reason why I think preserving nature is one of the biggest factors in working to reverse environmental harm. Not only is recreationally-speaking an important part of a healthy lifestyle, its a scientific fact that the benefit of spending time in nature as a child is a huge factor in management of things like ADHD, etc. Look at Richard Louv's book “Last Child in the Woods”, in which he argues for the therapeutic value of outdoor time for children. I think the best thing for our society is to return to an appreciation and awareness of the benefits of the natural world.
The experience that I described above is probably the biggest reason why I think preserving nature is one of the biggest factors in working to reverse environmental harm. Not only is recreationally-speaking an important part of a healthy lifestyle, its a scientific fact that the benefit of spending time in nature as a child is a huge factor in management of things like ADHD, etc. Look at Richard Louv's book “Last Child in the Woods”, in which he argues for the therapeutic value of outdoor time for children. I think the best thing for our society is to return to an appreciation and awareness of the benefits of the natural world.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Responding to Question 2: "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It"
Michael Maniates wrote his article, "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It" in an appealing, motivational manner at least to me. Maniates criticizes the mantra of "Keep it simple, stupid" in solving the world's environmental problems, which seems to have been the attitude among environmental leaders for the past few decades. While it is true, when first facing complex, global interdependent issues, such as the environmental ones our world is facing, it is easier to begin small and simple in order to start the forward process of change. However, these environmental problems are not new nor small, and as Maniates argues it's time for people to stop treating them as such.
Maniates' main criticism, it appears, is with the leaders of the environmental movement. The leaders, including Al Gore, are focusing on babying Americans with simple and small plans, that will lead to great change. (Recycle, take shorter showers, etc.) However as Maniates points out, great change does not come with encouraging small ideas or easy solutions, and the great leaders will realize this and adapt a policy which will encourage big thinking and new ideas to solve the world's problems. I really enjoyed the author's comparison to FDR's New Deal ("Franklin Roosevelt didn't mobilize the country's energies by listing 10 easy ways to oppose fascism.") and the environmental movement. FDR would not have been able to pull the nation out of the great depression and stimulate the economy without A New Deal, a new way of approaching the economy, and encouraging people to take an active role in reshaping the world. Similarly today's leaders of the environmental movement, need to take a more active and progressive role in encouraging Americans to think of new solutions to our environmental issues and move beyond the easy and simple steps to help save our environment.
On the other hand, Maniates seems to feel as though individual Americans can do more than the simple and easy solutions currently presented to us. While I agree that Americans could all be doing a lot more to help live a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle, without strong leadership and fresh ideas from within the environmental movement, large changes from individual Americans are nearly impossible to expect. Maniates states, "We need to be looking at fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems rather than technological tweaking on the margins, and this means changes and costs that our current and would-be leaders seem afraid to discuss." If the changes need to occur within our energy, transportation, and agricultural systems, which is mostly a call for leadership amongst America's political and environmental leaders, then what per say is the average American to do to help with these changes? While I agree that average Americans are the heart of most change in this country, through our individual innovation, without strong leadership it is hard to blame Americans for taking the "easy" way out in regards to environmental problems.
Amanda
Maniates' main criticism, it appears, is with the leaders of the environmental movement. The leaders, including Al Gore, are focusing on babying Americans with simple and small plans, that will lead to great change. (Recycle, take shorter showers, etc.) However as Maniates points out, great change does not come with encouraging small ideas or easy solutions, and the great leaders will realize this and adapt a policy which will encourage big thinking and new ideas to solve the world's problems. I really enjoyed the author's comparison to FDR's New Deal ("Franklin Roosevelt didn't mobilize the country's energies by listing 10 easy ways to oppose fascism.") and the environmental movement. FDR would not have been able to pull the nation out of the great depression and stimulate the economy without A New Deal, a new way of approaching the economy, and encouraging people to take an active role in reshaping the world. Similarly today's leaders of the environmental movement, need to take a more active and progressive role in encouraging Americans to think of new solutions to our environmental issues and move beyond the easy and simple steps to help save our environment.
On the other hand, Maniates seems to feel as though individual Americans can do more than the simple and easy solutions currently presented to us. While I agree that Americans could all be doing a lot more to help live a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle, without strong leadership and fresh ideas from within the environmental movement, large changes from individual Americans are nearly impossible to expect. Maniates states, "We need to be looking at fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems rather than technological tweaking on the margins, and this means changes and costs that our current and would-be leaders seem afraid to discuss." If the changes need to occur within our energy, transportation, and agricultural systems, which is mostly a call for leadership amongst America's political and environmental leaders, then what per say is the average American to do to help with these changes? While I agree that average Americans are the heart of most change in this country, through our individual innovation, without strong leadership it is hard to blame Americans for taking the "easy" way out in regards to environmental problems.
Amanda
Response to question #2
I found Michael Maniates article about going green interesting because he frames his argument in an almost...economics-based format. Based on his evaluation of other study on the topic, on how to "be green", he explains how human beings, by nature, would prefer greening methods which are the simplest to do; that is, those that do not change our usual routine too much. These do not necessarily return the optimal results, though. This rings of economics to me in that it is an example of how we prefer to function to the best of our natural capabilities, not necessarily what is best for our neighbors or the environment.
So, is this laziness? hardly. Like i said, its pure economics, supply and demand. But what Maniates is advocating is that there needs to be a shift in expectations, in demands -- everyday people need to understand the results of what changes they can make, and the urgent need for them to do so. If they do, if these choices are enabled by the market to be consumer AND eco friendly, perhaps led by charismatic leaders of hip marketing campaigns (Live Earth, anyone?), these changes will occur sooner rather than later.
When we enjoy doing more than just the "easy" solutions, we will see more dramatic results.
So, is this laziness? hardly. Like i said, its pure economics, supply and demand. But what Maniates is advocating is that there needs to be a shift in expectations, in demands -- everyday people need to understand the results of what changes they can make, and the urgent need for them to do so. If they do, if these choices are enabled by the market to be consumer AND eco friendly, perhaps led by charismatic leaders of hip marketing campaigns (Live Earth, anyone?), these changes will occur sooner rather than later.
When we enjoy doing more than just the "easy" solutions, we will see more dramatic results.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Discussion Question 2
The first connection I had with this article was the frustration with books such as “The Lazy Environmentalist” or “Its Easy Being Green”, that reduce a global crisis to something that is solvable within our day to day lives. This is obviously just not true – changing all the light bulbs in your house, and recycling your overpriced bottles of water isn't going to halt the cataclysmic movement of climate change.
However, I would disagree with Maniates in saying that these sort of books arise solely from the fact that, “we, by nature, aren't terribly interested in doing anything that isn't private, individualistic, cost-effective and, above all, easy.” True, making these small household changes can be individualistic, easy, and cost-effective, but the fact that these sort of books make a bestseller list speaks much more to the trend as a whole.
As middle-class Americans, caught up in our consumer society, we recognize that “going green” is the new thing, the new trend, the new cool way to establish yourself within society. Its Descartes for the 21st century - “I recycle, therefore I am”. We do these things like purchase literature on saving the environment because we as individuals feel the need to be a member of something greater than ourselves. Maniates is most certainly right when says that being able to do things like quote “An Inconvenient Truth” or buy Seventh Generation products, we are stylish. We in essence buy into something not because we deeply care about it or value what it stands for, but because it is part of a habit of consuming and taking part in society.
Finally, I would argue that not all adults are aware enough of the difficult choices that Maniates says we must make. We will certainly listen if and when our leaders present us with the honest truth about the destruction of the planet, but I'm not sure that most people understand the necessity of hard work. The environmental movement has a lot of growing to do, but the fact that so little is being done now, makes me pretty pessimistic about the ability of average man. Don't get me wrong, I think we have the resources and power to make some really great changes in the world, but I wouldn't put so much pressure or faith in the creativity and endurance of people who rely on “The Lazy Environmentalist”.
However, I would disagree with Maniates in saying that these sort of books arise solely from the fact that, “we, by nature, aren't terribly interested in doing anything that isn't private, individualistic, cost-effective and, above all, easy.” True, making these small household changes can be individualistic, easy, and cost-effective, but the fact that these sort of books make a bestseller list speaks much more to the trend as a whole.
As middle-class Americans, caught up in our consumer society, we recognize that “going green” is the new thing, the new trend, the new cool way to establish yourself within society. Its Descartes for the 21st century - “I recycle, therefore I am”. We do these things like purchase literature on saving the environment because we as individuals feel the need to be a member of something greater than ourselves. Maniates is most certainly right when says that being able to do things like quote “An Inconvenient Truth” or buy Seventh Generation products, we are stylish. We in essence buy into something not because we deeply care about it or value what it stands for, but because it is part of a habit of consuming and taking part in society.
Finally, I would argue that not all adults are aware enough of the difficult choices that Maniates says we must make. We will certainly listen if and when our leaders present us with the honest truth about the destruction of the planet, but I'm not sure that most people understand the necessity of hard work. The environmental movement has a lot of growing to do, but the fact that so little is being done now, makes me pretty pessimistic about the ability of average man. Don't get me wrong, I think we have the resources and power to make some really great changes in the world, but I wouldn't put so much pressure or faith in the creativity and endurance of people who rely on “The Lazy Environmentalist”.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Check it out...
http://earthstar.newlibertyvillage.com/thinkingsmall.htm
I found this link in random searches on the Internet, and I thought it was pretty applicable to what we've been talking about in class.
I found this link in random searches on the Internet, and I thought it was pretty applicable to what we've been talking about in class.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Response to Discussion Question #1
Echoing the sentiments of my fellow Lorax Lovers, I see a sort of backlash attitude displayed in Stanley Fish’s article “I Am, Therefore I Pollute”. What I mean is that although Fish practices fairly progressive and thorough methods of being eco-friendly, his gripes about adopting eco-friendly practices do seem totally frustrated, and full of…resentment?
So, noting this chagrin about complying with eco-friendly practices, does this make him “environmentally friendly” at all? Or simply “environmentally conscious and active”? What does it mean to live “environmentally friendly” in the modern-day United States? I think that Fish, aside from his personal lamentations, still illustrates in his article some of the different versions of this. While Fish, in his own attitudes does his part only by force (or if not, with complaints at hand), he also shows how is wife advocates the more environmentally friendly options in their household by choice, by her own free will, as a means of helping to reduce her consumption (or at least her eco-footprint). On the opposite side of the spectrum, Fish also portrays a neighbor that is “planning to stockpile incandescent bulbs in the face of a prediction that they will be phased out by 2012”; this seemingly represents an attitude of those who feel unaffected by climate change, or not personally responsible for saving the planet, even with the simplest changes in habits (like switching the type of light bulb that they use).
In regards to whether his article rang true to me? Well, yes and no. It did in the sense that I understand his gripes about how complicated that methods of being environmentally friendly can be. Sorting one’s recyclables goods, the often seemingly convoluted nature of programs like carbon offsetting, and simply the concern of truly knowing whether our efforts ACTUALLY make a difference can be frustrating. But on the other hand, it is validating, with each and every contribution effort, to know that through minor changes in our personal routines (remembering to turn things off, what we buy, how much extra we pay for “eco-friendly”, etc.), we easily have the potential to ensure a healthy planet for ourselves and our future generations. What it means to be truly “environmentally friendly” is (hopefully) to understand the impacts that our changes can make, and further, to keep a positive attitude about doing so!
So, noting this chagrin about complying with eco-friendly practices, does this make him “environmentally friendly” at all? Or simply “environmentally conscious and active”? What does it mean to live “environmentally friendly” in the modern-day United States? I think that Fish, aside from his personal lamentations, still illustrates in his article some of the different versions of this. While Fish, in his own attitudes does his part only by force (or if not, with complaints at hand), he also shows how is wife advocates the more environmentally friendly options in their household by choice, by her own free will, as a means of helping to reduce her consumption (or at least her eco-footprint). On the opposite side of the spectrum, Fish also portrays a neighbor that is “planning to stockpile incandescent bulbs in the face of a prediction that they will be phased out by 2012”; this seemingly represents an attitude of those who feel unaffected by climate change, or not personally responsible for saving the planet, even with the simplest changes in habits (like switching the type of light bulb that they use).
In regards to whether his article rang true to me? Well, yes and no. It did in the sense that I understand his gripes about how complicated that methods of being environmentally friendly can be. Sorting one’s recyclables goods, the often seemingly convoluted nature of programs like carbon offsetting, and simply the concern of truly knowing whether our efforts ACTUALLY make a difference can be frustrating. But on the other hand, it is validating, with each and every contribution effort, to know that through minor changes in our personal routines (remembering to turn things off, what we buy, how much extra we pay for “eco-friendly”, etc.), we easily have the potential to ensure a healthy planet for ourselves and our future generations. What it means to be truly “environmentally friendly” is (hopefully) to understand the impacts that our changes can make, and further, to keep a positive attitude about doing so!
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Discussion Question #1
We, as Americans, are not generally the kind of people to change our ways willingly, and this goes along with the environmental problems we face. Its not that we don't care or that we want to see the Earth destroyed, its that trying to undo societal norms that have been in place for decades, that represent what it means to be an individual, are really hard to begin to change. Stanley Fish makes this point clear: “I believe in global warming. I believe in Al Gore. But it is possible to believe something and still resist taking the actions your belief seems to require.”
That being said, I think living in an “environmentally friendly” way for most people in the US represents the exact problem that we have – instead of consuming less (flying less, driving less, eating less, buying less, etc.) we continue to consume the same amount, just in a way that societal pressures allow us to feel better about. I will still buy 100 trees worth of toilet paper this year, but it will be Seventh Generation instead of Cottonelle, because consumer America tells me that Seventh Generation is more “environmentally friendly”. I sympathize mostly with what Fish writes about in his article. Its hard to “keep up with the Jones”, especially when defining how much you care about the environment often means whether or not you drive a hybrid car.
Emily Melhorn
That being said, I think living in an “environmentally friendly” way for most people in the US represents the exact problem that we have – instead of consuming less (flying less, driving less, eating less, buying less, etc.) we continue to consume the same amount, just in a way that societal pressures allow us to feel better about. I will still buy 100 trees worth of toilet paper this year, but it will be Seventh Generation instead of Cottonelle, because consumer America tells me that Seventh Generation is more “environmentally friendly”. I sympathize mostly with what Fish writes about in his article. Its hard to “keep up with the Jones”, especially when defining how much you care about the environment often means whether or not you drive a hybrid car.
Emily Melhorn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
